why are some rejecting the cup

[LSK]

In a way it’s symbolic of modern times. People want communion with Christ but don’t feel obliged to partake of the blood of Christ which washes away sins. They are not really aware of their sinfulness and don’t feel they need to be forgiven.

OR it is because we have been very well catechized and know that we are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord when we receive Him in the Host.

I am reminded of a friend of mine who is also a recovering alcoholic and was very close friends with Blessed Teresa of Calcutta (copies of their personal correspondence was requested by the Vatican during the investigation into Mother Teresa’s beatification process). One time, my friend had to request that the priest not use intinction when she was to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. She was very embarrassed, until Mother reminded her that “You people in AA have a covenant with God. Do not break it”. When my friend tells that as part of her story, I think (I could be wrong here, so forgive me) that the Catholics in the room who are well catechized recognize the significance of what Mother said to her.

 

[Brendan]

. Anyway, the Blood just does it for me. He shed it on the cross, and it cleanses me and gives me His life within me.

That’s exactly why I always recieve the Blood too. Only I choose to recieve it under the species of bread.

His precious Body does as well, but if both are offered, I receive both. Faith and Trust.

You use of terms really shows what is wrong with this practice. It give the impression that the species are somehow different in a way other than who they appear to our senses. I’m not saying that you don’t understand this, but FAR too many Catholics that I encounter actually believe that one is the uniquely Body and one is uniquely Blood and that they are seperate.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

And also with your spirit.

 

[Walking_Home]

That’s exactly why I always recieve the Blood too. Only I choose to recieve it under the species of bread.

You use of terms really shows what is wrong with this practice. It give the impression that the species are somehow different in a way other than who they appear to our senses. I’m not saying that you don’t understand this, but FAR too many Catholics that I encounter actually believe that one is the uniquely Body and one is uniquely Blood and that they are seperate.

And also with your spirit.

---

Yes—I remember a poster in a thread on this same topic sometime back. This person was a cradle Catholic and was surprised to find out the each individual species is the whole Christ. He/she had been carrying the belief you describe above.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

The last thing I need is to be pulled over during a routine traffic stop and have the police officer smell alcohol on my breath.

one sip of wine wouldnt put you over the limit

 

[He_Man]

To clarify, we know the Church teaches that the Host is sufficient.

I don’t know anyone who does this, but I assume, that the Blood is also sufficient if one wanted to ONLY receive the Blood?

I am not talking about why one would want to, since I choose to receive both (and that is a preferance), but only the doctrinal legality of receiving only the wine.

 

[JimG]

To clarify, we know the Church teaches that the Host is sufficient.

I don’t know anyone who does this, but I assume, that the Blood is also sufficient if one wanted to ONLY receive the Blood?

I am not talking about why one would want to, since I choose to receive both (and that is a preferance), but only the doctrinal legality of receiving only the wine.

Yes, it is sufficient. A person with Celiac disease might choose to receive only from the cup, because of serious allergic reaction to the wheat used in making bread.

 

[He_Man]

Yes, it is sufficient. A person with Celiac disease might choose to receive only from the cup, because of serious allergic reaction to the wheat used in making bread.

I figured, just rarely hear it mentioned.

Thanks Jim.

 

[JimG]

Come to think of it, if a parish generally has priests or EHMC’s offering both the hosts and the cup separately, a person in the communion line might bypass the host and receive only from the cup. No reason need be given.

 

[Brendan]

To clarify, we know the Church teaches that the Host is sufficient.

I don’t know anyone who does this, but I assume, that the Blood is also sufficient if one wanted to ONLY receive the Blood?

Yes, they contents of the paten, and the contents of the chalice are indentical, except to our senses. They are, quite literally, the exact same thing.

 

[japhy]

Come to think of it, if a parish generally has priests or EHMC’s offering both the hosts and the cup separately, a person in the communion line might bypass the host and receive only from the cup. No reason need be given.

A problem I see is that the offering of the Chalice necessitates EMHCs in many parishes that simply don’t have enough priests and deacons (and acolytes). The offering of the Chalice is not mandatory, so there is no reason it must be offered in parishes where doing so requires the extraordinary ministers.

 

[jmcrae]

A problem I see is that the offering of the Chalice necessitates EMHCs in many parishes that simply don’t have enough priests and deacons (and acolytes). The offering of the Chalice is not mandatory, so there is no reason it must be offered in parishes where doing so requires the extraordinary ministers.

True - it is the Deacon who should be offering the Chalice, or one of the priests. If there is no Deacon, and only one priest, then obviously you would receive only the Host.

 

[Sheeniac]

---

or the Cup alone in certain circumstances.

And what circumstances would that be? I am an EMHC and another EHMC sent someone back into line for a host before she would let her drink from the chalice. I was in that situation once, and let the person drink from the chalice without a second thought.

 

[sphilomena]

OR it is because we have been very well catechized and know that we are receiving the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord when we receive Him in the Host.

Exactly! As we did for decades and decades before this practice was introduced; younger people and new Catholics may not realize the change that was made.

 

[Pete_1]

It came to my attention during the Mass tonight that some members are taking the bread but not the wine. They just walk past the person holding the cup of wine and smile at them. Why would they refuse the wine?
Ken

I used not to drink from the Cup because i did not like the taste of wine and was told that Chirst is contained fully in both the bread and wine.

 

[JimG]

And what circumstances would that be? I am an EMHC and another EHMC sent someone back into line for a host before she would let her drink from the chalice. I was in that situation once, and let the person drink from the chalice without a second thought.

I think you were correct. What possible reason would an EHMC have for sending someone back into the line for the host? If both are routinely offerred, it makes no difference which they receive.

 

[po18guy]

You all have given some good reasons for not partaking of the wine. I would like to add to your list…

1. Sickness ( to prevent the spread of germs to others) However,
   our priest said he has never had an outbreak of colds after a mass.
2. Alcoholism (they should not ever receive )
3. Allergies (many people are allergic)
4. **Medication ( many people can not have any alcoholic bevereges due to medications they are taking)
5. Dislike (many people can’t stand the stuff).**
   We have even had people who were allergic to the host, when this is known in advance, a special host can be brought in for them.

God Bless You!

One parishoner in my parish is intolerant of the bread used, so receives only His Blood. Either/or is absolutely fine, as long as you are there to receive it!

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[lak611]

Come to think of it, if a parish generally has priests or EHMC’s offering both the hosts and the cup separately, a person in the communion line might bypass the host and receive only from the cup. No reason need be given.

I was EMHC at daily Mass. The priest was distributing Hosts, and I had the Chalice. Father was only using Hosts consecrated at the Mass and ran out because there was a larger than usual congregation. The last communicant received only from the Chalice. Father did not go to the tabernacle to get one Host. The communicant was well-catechized, as she understood that she only needed to receive from the Chalice.

 

[po18guy]

When I first started to recieve I did both I would recommend that for everyone. But our wines are not sweet for some reason and I rather like a sweeter wine. But I would know that I can and should honor the Lord and am greatful. I think I should more myself so many don’t at our church and I think they are afraid of germs.

By the way our priest is one who got real sick last month not us, bless him I think he had pneumonia, did he take it all for us what a sacrifice he is, none of us got it and he is an angel.
D.

Let the bitterness of the Blood remind you of the bitterness of Christ’s desolation in the garden at Gethsemane and while hanging on the cross. Even Christ asked the Father: “if it be possible, let this cup pass me by”, but He willingly accepted it with all of its bitterness. And, so we do.

Christ’s peace be always with you.

 

[Walking_Home]

And what circumstances would that be? I am an EMHC and another EHMC sent someone back into line for a host before she would let her drink from the chalice. I was in that situation once, and let the person drink from the chalice without a second thought.

---

The following is the canon that covers this. Case of necessity --would cover for ex. someone with a wheat alergy or maybe someone who cannot swallow the Host. Reception of the Precious Blood alone–would not be the general way of receiving Holy Communion. Also I would think–the situation described by lak611 in post 215 --would seem to fall under --case of necessity.

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3A.HTM

Can. 925 Holy communion is to be given under the form of bread alone, or under both species according to the norm of the liturgical laws, or even under the form of wine alone in a case of necessity.

 

[He_Man]

^^Which gets back to my question. Without a legit reason for abstaining from the Body of Christ, one should not be receiving the Blood only?